Article info
PDFCharlie Gard
Paper
A threshold of significant harm (f)or a viable alternative therapeutic option?
- Correspondence to Prof. Jo Bridgeman, Sussex Law School, University of Sussex, Brighton, BN1 9QE, UK; J.C.Bridgeman{at}sussex.ac.uk
Citation
A threshold of significant harm (f)or a viable alternative therapeutic option?
Publication history
- Received December 20, 2017
- Revised February 9, 2018
- Accepted February 19, 2018
- First published May 3, 2018.
Online issue publication
June 26, 2018
Article Versions
- Previous version (26 June 2018).
- You are viewing the most recent version of this article.
Request permissions
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Copyright information
© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.
Other content recommended for you
- Clinic, courtroom or (specialist) committee: in the best interests of the critically Ill child?
- Better to hesitate at the threshold of compulsion: PKU testing and the concept of family autonomy in Eire
- The best interests test at the end of life on PICU: a plea for a family centred approach
- The child's interests and the case for the permissibility of male infant circumcision
- The implications of the David Glass case for future clinical practice in the UK
- Consent and capacity in children and young people
- Consent to testing for brain death
- Involving parents in paediatric clinical ethics committee deliberations: a current controversy
- Law, ethics, and emotion: the Charlie Gard case
- Making decisions to limit treatment in life-limiting and life-threatening conditions in children: a framework for practice